Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jarhead

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 279
71
Current Law Students / Re: To law students 29+
« on: August 13, 2006, 05:29:29 PM »
I often wonder if I am being over confident Im 33 I've been working for ten years now and have a very high stress/pressure job. I was also a Marine for five years, I'm just not thinking that all the horror stories i hear about law school and how much work it is will bother me. Im no stranger to hard work, I've been dealing with dealines and such for a long time now ...and i just dont think academic work is that difficult if you put in the time and effort...am i crazy?

72
Transferring / Re: T3 to T1 is possible
« on: June 25, 2006, 10:45:52 AM »
Hi, congrats. I live and work in the DC area and just to warn you it is EXPENSIVE. If GW has on campus housing I would suggest you take that option. If the law school is co-located with the undergrad its located on 23rd St. near the State Department and Watergate Hotel. Rents in DC metro usually low end start at $1200. which is pretty cheap. I'm not sure you will be able to find anything in that area for below
$1500. Anyway I am not a law student yet but just wanted to give you the heads up on what to expect for housing costs. Once again congrats on the transfer

73
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 15, 2008, 10:22:54 PM »
Wall Street Journal
Terminated
January 30, 2008; Page A16

Arnold Schwarzenegger's "universal" health-care plan died in the California legislature on Monday, in what can only be called a mercy killing. So let's conduct a political autopsy, because there are important lessons here for the national health-care debate.

It's especially useful to compare today's muted obituaries to the page-one melodrama that surrounded the Governor when he announced his plan a year ago. Endless media mash notes were bestowed on the "post-partisan" Republican trying to get something done.
[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

The idea was that Mr. Schwarzenegger would set a national precedent, leading to a groundswell for reform in Washington. Not to mention that the Schwarzenegger plan was a near-copy of the one Mitt Romney pioneered in Massachusetts, and the one Hillary Clinton now favors. A leading author of the California plan was Laurie Rubiner, who directed health policy at the New America Foundation before becoming Senator Clinton's legislative director in 2005.
* * *

So much for that. The California legislature is probably the most liberal this side of Vermont, and even Democrats refused to become shock troops for this latest liberal experiment. Mr. Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the State Assembly did agree on a compromise plan in December. But on Monday, only a single member of the Senate Health Committee voted to report the bill to the full chamber -- and thus it joined a graveyard full of state "universal" health-care failures.

Like collapses in Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, this one crumpled because of the costs, which are always much higher than anticipated. The truth teller was state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who thought to ask about the price tag of a major new entitlement amid what's already a $14.5 billion budget shortfall.

An independent analysis confirmed the plan would be far more expensive than proponents admitted. Even under the most favorable assumptions, spending would outpace revenue by $354 million after two years, and likely $3.9 billion or more. "A situation that I thought was bad," Mr. Perata noted, "in fact was worse."

This reveals that liberal health-care politics is increasingly the art of the impossible: You can't make coverage "universal" while at the same time keeping costs in check -- at least without prohibitive tax increases. Lowering cost and increasing access, in other words, are separate and irreconcilable issues.

Of course Washington might be able to disregard these practicalities, because the states are prohibited from running deficits while the feds aren't. But the California experience also reveals some of the ideological differences among Democrats, which would also divide in the Beltway.

The centerpiece of the Schwarzenegger plan was the "individual mandate," which is also the heart of HillaryCare 2.0. Such a law would compel everyone to acquire insurance, with subsidies for those who couldn't afford it. But the individual mandate incited a liberal revolt. Many Democrats and some unions argued the subsidies weren't generous enough to cover lower-income families, and it wasn't fair to penalize them for coverage they couldn't afford. One state Senator called the plan "a knife in the throat of the working poor." So the plan failed because it was too expensive -- and because for some Democrats it wasn't expensive enough.

Opposition also arose because the plan didn't do enough to punish the left's health-care villains. While it greatly expanded regulation of insurers -- requiring them to accept all applicants, and prohibiting premium differences based on health status -- it didn't cap how much they could charge consumers, or regulate their profits. Democrats also complained that the taxes the plan imposed on business, as high as 6.5% of payroll, weren't high enough. Business disagreed.

All of which is to say that while the plan was opposed by nearly all Republicans, it died at the hands of Democrats. Mr. Schwarzenegger was a collaborator in that he went out of his way to assail and thus alienate fellow Republicans for opposing tax increases to pay for the plan. But if Mrs. Clinton or Barack Obama want to push a major health-care reform through Congress, they will have to find a way to appease their own left-wing while not alienating business and taxpayers.
* * *

What the California collapse should discredit in particular is the individual mandate as a policy tool for Republican reformers. This was Mr. Romney's enthusiasm for a time, helped along by the Heritage Foundation. But in order to be enforceable, such a mandate inevitably becomes a government mandate, and a very expensive one at that.

Voters are rightly concerned about health care, but they also don't want to pay higher taxes to finance coverage for everyone. Mr. Schwarzenegger's spectacular failure shows that there's an opening for Republicans to make the case for health-care reform based on choice and tax-equity, not mandates and tax hikes.

::sighs::

There's a big difference between universal coverage mandates and universal public health insurance.  The reason the California proposal is so expensive is precisely because it pays for private health insurance at unregulated rates, as even this WSJ editorial recognizes.  While I am not a fan of any plan that subsidizes payments to private insurers, the Clinton plan is far superior because (a) it is nationwide and (b) it offers price-controlled government insurance plans to compete with private insurance, which would at least counteract the inflationary effect of subsidies.

And what happened to this?

I'm done, not another comment. :-X




i have to chuckle....but that's it, i swear... :-X

74
Black Law Students / Re: Black Law Student Discussion Board
« on: February 15, 2008, 02:49:43 PM »
We just did flowergrams (carnations or roses) as an OutLaws fundraiser (to send folks to a conference).  I got them from the creepiest people.



we had a whole hullabaloo about the flowergrams people were saying it was highschool why waste money on the flowers blah blah....i do think its highschoolish but damn can't people just send carnations if they want

75
Black Law Students / Re: How Come...?
« on: February 14, 2008, 10:18:01 AM »
how come ya'll see that psychiatrist that got chopped up on the upper east side
how come that ish was 2 blocks from my apartment
how come i was waiting for the bus right outside the building the morning after it happened

76
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 13, 2008, 09:24:27 PM »
so my question is do you reject the pretty much universally accepted notion that private businesses are more efficient than government bureaucracies...


Seriously.  You're a f-ing moron.




really how so is this enlightened post meant to say that his statement its not universally accepted or that its not true?

You're a moron because you display no critical reading skills whatsoever.

1.  The clear implication from what she wrote is that she rejects such a notion.
2.  She has posted NUMEROUS times her reasons for rejecting such a notion, including
      A. arguments showing effective government bureaucracies, and
      B. arguments showing ineffective business models, particularly
           i. the health care system, which compares not only poorly to other government bureaucracies like the Post Office, but even to the minimal government healthcare assistance already in place (Medicare or Medicaid)



If you want to take her on regarding the merits of that argument, you can certainly do that (as Freak is attempting).  If you want to just state, simply and categorically, without even a shred of evidence, that everyone just knows business is more effective than government, then you're a f-ing moron.



first of all my critical reading skills are just fine lets test yours. the fact that their are effective government bureaucracies (which i will accept for this response)does not at all refute the fact that private industry is more efficient than any government bureaucracies...the fact that there are inefficient private industries does not at all refute the fact that private industry is more efficient than government bureaucracies... if anything it acknowledges the fact that bureaucracies are by nature inefficient but some are more efficient than others.

secondly you post bolded and the question my critical reading skills. let's test your critical reading skills American Heritage Dictionary: bu·reauc·ra·cy An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals.   secondly i don't need to post a shred of evidence to state that private business is more effective than the government anymore than i need to state a shred of evidence that water is wet for it to be so.....there are still some people who reject that the world is flat doesn't mean it is

lastly this particular subject has been going on forever, it has gone around and come back again no one here freak or miss p, is making any arguments that someone else hasn't already made if you have the time to go back through and find them more power to you, i do not...miss p is free to reject the universally accepted premise of business and economic theory that government bureaucracies are inherently inefficient i won't call her a moron because of it....can't say the same for you 

77
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 13, 2008, 12:33:00 PM »
so my question is do you reject the pretty much universally accepted notion that private businesses are more efficient than government bureaucracies...


Seriously.  You're a f-ing moron.




really how so is this enlightened post meant to say that his statement its not universally accepted or that its not true?

78
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 12, 2008, 08:11:27 PM »
since ya'll want to continue to beat the horse skeleton i have a question for ms. p...it seems clear to me, i and i guess at this point me and freak are the only ones who it is clear to, that freak is arguing from an economic and business stand point....i know you feel that this is just ideology not backed by concrete examples but i'm curious to know if you've taken any business management or economics classes beyond the intro level...the reason i'm asking is because as i see it freak is basically using his/her practical examples to illustrate basic principles of business. he/she is pointing out the differences between the way government operates and the way businesses operates....and saying that any successful "universal" health plan will be subject to and governed by these basic principles....those principles do not go away simply because its morally right to provide everyone with affordable healthcare.....you always have examples of how your figures support your position and im not agreeing or refuting them here, but i have yet to see address the business 101 aspect other than to call it so much sloganeering.....so my question is do you reject the pretty much universally accepted notion that private businesses are more efficient than government bureaucracies....or do you think that the universal healthcare system you propose or support (not tryna turn you into hillary) simply will not be subject to these principles....not trying to start an argument just trying to understand where your foundation is planted....not to bring A into it but i think he pretty much argues from the business stanpiong as well...and if he doesn't he will be correcting me shortly...i know you're a dedicated public servant but just wondering if you have any experience in the business arena...going back over the posts it seems like this is where the disconnect lies 

79
Black Law Students / Re: Black Law Student Discussion Board
« on: February 10, 2008, 09:55:05 PM »
When do you guys think this Amy Winehouse fad will be over? I don't know how long talentless hacks stay popular.



Seeing as she just swept the grammys im thinking not for a while   ;)

she didn't sweep...she did 5/6.  she's tied for the most wins by a female artist in one night



well sweepish

80
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: February 10, 2008, 09:52:54 PM »
well at least now he can afford a good lawyer

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 279